At times like this it is reasonable for people to be concerned. But a campaign has been launched here that seems to be based not on rational concern, but ignorance and the desire to profit from inflaming public opinion.
A key demand of this Quixotic campaign has been that tower cranes older than ten years should be banned. This rule appears simple and easy to apply. And, if implemented, it would do no good.
It is reminiscent of the infamous Dangerous Dogs Act, put in place in the UK in 1991 when a spate of high-profile attacks on young children, and a subsequent media frenzy, led the government to ban certain dog breeds. The Act pandered to public opinion, was impossible to implement fairly, and missed a key point: dangerous dogs are created by bad owners.
The Dangerous Dogs Act didn’t clearly state what it was banning. Just as it failed to account for mongrels or new breeds, so this proposed legislation would struggle to account for every tower crane. Clearly, the intention is that parts that are susceptible to fatigue should be banned, but this proposal would not identify clearly where the problem applies and where it doesn’t.
In two of the accidents that have sparked the campaign, Liverpool and Croydon, there is no suggestion that the age or condition of the cranes was to blame. In Battersea, questions have been raised about the crane’s maintenance, but its age has not been proven to be an issue.
Setting a mandatory retirement age for tower cranes would certainly make it more expensive to run a construction business, and cut into revenues that would be better spent on regular inspections and safe working practices. As the article on Lampson Australia (in this issue, p35) shows, age is not the best indication of a crane’s reliability. The industry needs to keep its eye on maintenance and regular inspections, not be distracted by badly framed legislation.
-Will North, assistant editor
